From: Denyse O'Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 16:25:28 EST
Jan de Koning wrote:
> THE school-system? I know at least three school-systems here (Public,
> Roman-Catholic, Christian) and I know about several more. I see that
> you live in Toronto just like I do, so I cannot understand your talking
> about the schools like there was only one.
Jan, I would appreciate any information you can provide that shows that
the Catholic school system in Ontario has separate evolution
expectations from the public system. As the many tiny Christian systems
are not publicly funded (or only partially so), I do not know that they
are relevant, but perhaps you can explain.
Let me take this opportunity to invite you to watch Test of Faith on
Vision TV on Monday, November 17, at 10:00 p.m. There, you will see how
evolutionist Michael Ruse spoke to Bob Giza, a Toronto teacher who
talked about intelligent design theory with his Grade 12 biology class,
as part of the discussion of Darwinism. I don't know how much of what
the studio audience heard will be edited off the tape, but I was there,
and it was pretty abusive, in my view. Ruse taught for many years at the
University of Guelph, near Toronto.
>My children did not go to
> public schools here, and we have here a graduate school, Institute for
> Christian Studies (ICS), several Roman Catholic colleges, Wycliffe
> College, Community Colleges, Bible Colleges, 2 Universities, etc.etc.
> When accusing you should be more specific.
Well, yes, we have those institutions, but why don't we talk about the
University of Toronto, which must have many times the students of all of
them put together. Or the Toronto District school Board, the biggest
board in Canada? What do you suppose goes on at those places?
> To my knowledge several school-systems may teach evolution, but very few
> will teach unadulterated "Darwinism". On the contrary, even
> school-systems that teach so-called "evolution" may do it on a truly
> Christian basis.
Can you give an example of evolution "on a Christina basis" being taught
at the Toronto District School Board, the largest board in Canada? More
to the point, can you justify it, given that TDSB is an emphatically
secular board?
Even that may be done in different ways. Defining
> "evolution" as Denyse does is dangerous, and may be even called
> un-Christian as it does not specify enough what is wrong.
I believe I referred to Darwinism, not evolution.
> "Reductionist"? How? At the university level it gives more
> particulars than any anti-evolution theory can bring forward.
Well, yes, but for how much of Darwinism is there good evidence? That is
precisely the question at issue.
> "Atheistic"? Depends on who is teaching. Any Christian teaching in
> any place will often not hesitate to see some other person, who is not a
> Christian, to give him the label "atheist," without even trying to find
> the background of his thinking.
The best known Darwinists such as Dennett and Dawkins, Ruse and E.O.
Wilson, do not require us to guess. They publish books on their thinking.
As Christians we are really not good at
> distinguishing people we are disagreeing with. I can assure you,
> though, that I am a Christian, and I do think that God created using
> evolution.
I take your word for it.
> "Darwinism"? Is that what Darwin thought, or, do you mean what is
> taught now, pointing out Darwin's errors as well?
By Darwinism, I mean the view that life forms can be explained as the
result of natural selection acting on random mutations. It is called
neo-Darwinism in the science literature. In my experience, more people
are anxious to defend or excuse Darwin's errors than to point them out.
> "reductionist"? How? "chance-oriented"? According to the Bible,
> chance is in God's hands. Is that the "chance" you mean?
>
Well, I agree that the Bible says that, but I do not think that major
evolutionists like Dawkins, Ruse, and Dennett do.
It's Darwinism that is taught in biology classes, not the Bible.
cheers,
Denyse
> Jan de Koning
>
> At 09:22 AM 06/11/2003 -0500, Denyse O'Leary wrote:
>
>> Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> WHAT IS DARWINISM?
>>> The whole problem with Denyse's interviews and the ISCID article is
>>> that it puts up Darwinism as a strawman. I dont know what Darwinism
>>> is as it has as many definitions as there are people. Of course, this
>>> approach is to retain the big tent of ID.
>>> It also prevents us from considering non-reductionist and
>>> non-atheistic and non-chance views of evolution .
>>
>>
>> The Darwinism taught in the school system and university is
>> reductionist, atheistic, and chance-oriented. And it reflects not only
>> Darwin's view but that of key evolutionists today.
>>
>> You are free to promote a different view, but you will need a very
>> thick skin to promote it in the school system and university. I
>> sincerely wish you luck.
>>
>>
>>> Before we can consider all this;
>>> What is the status of the age of the earth and the fossil succession
>>> over time?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, as far as I can tell, the earth's pretty old, and a lot of
>> fossils have gone missing. Or never existed. Hard to tell which.
>>
>> Denyse
>>
>>
>>
>>> Any discussion which does not deal with that is like Hamlet without
>>> the Prince of Denmark
>>> What is chance and natural selection?
>>> A lot of confusion is caused by the loose use of terms such as
>>> chance, Darwinism and Naturalism.
>>> Michael
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Collins To:
>>> asa@lists.calvin.edu Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:45 AM
>>> Subject: Re: asa-digest V1 #3761
>>>
>>> --Original Message Text---
>>> From: asa-digest
>>> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:20:01 -0500
>>> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:51:08 -0500
>>> From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
>>> Subject: Re: Intelligent design controversy in Canada
>>> List members may be interested in an online interview with Kirk
>>> Dunston of the New Scholars Society in Canada, where he talks about
>>> intelligent design, Darwinian evolution, and genome mapping. The
>>> controversy is only now spreading to Canada.
>>> One of his comments:
>>>
>>> http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/031023evolution
>>>
>>> Natural processes, over the history of the universe, have the
>>> potential to produce up to 70 bits of information. Unfortunately,
>>> just one, average 300-residue protein requires about 500 bits to
>>> encode. The simplest theoretical life form would need somewhere in
>>> the neighbourhood of 250 protein-coding genes.
>>> There is also an interview with me at
>>>
>>> http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/031030evolution
>>>
>>> One of my comments: I only discovered how much trouble Darwinism
>>> was in when I took a year out of my life -- late 2002 to late 2003
>>> -- to study the situation. I was appalled. Darwinism has nothing
>>> like the support that we are accustomed to for theories in physics
>>> or chemistry.
>>> Denyse
>>> I read these articles - thanks. One thing I was hoping to find, but
>>> didn't,
>>> is some justification for the mysterious figure of 70 bits of
>>> information, which appears as though it is a "given" for some reason.
>>> I also recently came across an interesting essay by William Hasker,
>>> entitled "How not to be a Reductivist." He quotes Thomas Nagel, who
>>> 'admits quite candidly,
>>> I hope there is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont want
>>> the universe to be like that'
>>> as saying,
>>> "My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare
>>> condition and that it is
>>> responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.
>>> One of the
>>> tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary
>>> biology to explain
>>> everything about life, including everything about the human mind.
>>> Darwin enabled
>>> modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief,
>>> by apparently providing
>>> a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental
>>> features of the world.
>>> Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a
>>> process that can be
>>> entirely explained by the operation of the nonteleological laws of
>>> physics on the material
>>> of which we and our environments are all composed."
>>> and adds, "Nagel himself, even though he shares in the cosmic
>>> authority problem, strenuously resists this
>>> facile appeal to Darwinism."
>>> The whole essay can be found at
>>> http://www.iscid.org/papers/Hasker_NonReductivism_103103.pdf
>>> /Gary
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to
>> www.designorchance.com
>> My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the
>> Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be
>> published Spring 2004.
>>
>> To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397,
>> fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or
>> US$14.95).
>>
>> Denyse O'Leary
>> 14 Latimer Avenue
>> Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8
>> Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665
>> oleary@sympatico.ca
>> www.denyseoleary.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
-- To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be published Spring 2004.To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397, fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or US$14.95).
Denyse O'Leary 14 Latimer Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8 Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665 oleary@sympatico.ca www.denyseoleary.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 16:22:11 EST